Hawks carried over less salary cap money than anyone else

I'm not a cap/numbers guy but thought this was mildly interesting.

NEW YORK (AP) - The Jacksonville Jaguars carried over the most salary cap space from last year, $32.7 million, according to figures released Thursday by the players' union.

Under the labor agreement reached in 2012, teams can transfer unused salary cap space from the previous year. The total carry-over amount from 2015 was $203,963,112, making the average carry-over per club $6.4 million, the NFL Players Association said.

http://komonews.com/sports/seahawks/uni ... y-nfl-team

Percy Harvin's dead money. The gift that keeps on giving.

That was $7.2M of space last year that we could've carried over.

Ohhh, Percy. Money was also really tight last year due to adding Graham and paying Wilson/Wagner their bonuses. I think there would have been a few name vets we would have added at maybe TE/O-line for the playoff push but we were right up against the cap and basically didn't have any moves left.

We got a lot of studs. Those guys cost money. Household names.

Costa doin bizness.

The salary cap is stupid and although it is the anti Steinbrenner rule, it is failing because of the size of contracts. WE are the ones that pay these guys.

Largent80":2ul3sina said:

The salary cap is stupid and although it is the anti Steinbrenner rule, it is failing because of the size of contracts. WE are the ones that pay these guys.

Click to expand...

I guess it depends on what you expect it to achieve. If you think it's going to control prices or make going to games more affordable, it's going to be hugely disappointing. But that's not what it was designed to do. It was designed to keep the playing field competitive, and IMO the NFL is the most competitive organization in the US sports market, so by that measure, it's a huge success.

That's actually what I said, the Steinbrenner rule. Except that he would exceed the cap and pay the fines. What they should actually do is limit contracts, which of course would never happen.

We are now in the elite team echelon of spending capabilities which means we aren't gonna grab too many high profile players, our paid players have to perform and we have to draft well.

RiverDog":1hsrv4un said:

Largent80":1hsrv4un said:

The salary cap is stupid and although it is the anti Steinbrenner rule, it is failing because of the size of contracts. WE are the ones that pay these guys.

Click to expand...

I guess it depends on what you expect it to achieve. If you think it's going to control prices or make going to games more affordable, it's going to be hugely disappointing. But that's not what it was designed to do. It was designed to keep the playing field competitive, and IMO the NFL is the most competitive organization in the US sports market, so by that measure, it's a huge success.

Click to expand...

This. :13:

Largent80":2ha0jlro said:

That's actually what I said, the Steinbrenner rule. Except that he would exceed the cap and pay the fines. What they should actually do is limit contracts, which of course would never happen.

Click to expand...

Why do you care how much the players make? Stadium ticket prices are driven by consumer demand and the supply of seating. You could pay the players nothing and all it would mean is that the owners would collect what the players are currently getting now. Salary cap % as a function of revenue is an internal matter that only affects the participants involved (owners vs. players).

I don't care because it is so expensive I am very lucky if I can go to a game. They can make whatever, but the entire process has gotten old for me. I used to go to L.A. to watch the Rams in the cheap seats for $5.00, now game tickets can easily get over $1,000 each. Greed prevails.

Not trying to derail the thread, however my point is part of the process of cap money.

DavidSeven":3fgziuvd said:

Percy Harvin's dead money. The gift that keeps on giving.

That was $7.2M of space last year that we could've carried over.

Click to expand...

When does this zombie finally die? The Jets picked up the post-2016 salary, correct?

The question is....would the NFL have a hard time finding players to willingly play if they limited the contracts? I don't think they would.

But if the NFL did that, and then passed the savings on in the form of cheaper ticket prices, then it would be almost impossible to obtain tickets at face value. So if you wanted to get tickets, you'd have to buy them at the same resale price they go for now, which means that the people who buy tickets at face value and then resell them will make more money instead of the players.

And if the NFL decided to ban the resale of tickets, then good luck ever getting one.

Largent80":3pslmgla said:

That's actually what I said, the Steinbrenner rule. Except that he would exceed the cap and pay the fines. What they should actually do is limit contracts, which of course would never happen.

Click to expand...

Limiting contracts is a bad idea because it doesn't really change the pricing policy for going to games. That is more directly related to supply vs. demand. Television revenues pay the salaries. Basically the reason ticket prices and merchandise go up is because we, the consumer are willing to pay it.


As for the OP, I'm not surprised one bit. We were up against the cap all season. We were never going to have much left after signing Wilson and Wagner and paying the guys who already got their contracts. Add in the dead money we had and you come to a very tight salary cap situation. The good part though is they have wiggle room to do what needs to be done this off season.

DavidSeven":21jqmcc7 said:

Percy Harvin's dead money. The gift that keeps on giving.

That was $7.2M of space last year that we could've carried over.

Click to expand...

Correct but we did save $7M in salary the year he was traded so it really offset things as you had that from the prior season to carry into last

Largent80":2t9wzmiy said:

... I used to go to L.A. to watch the Rams in the cheap seats for $5.00..

Click to expand...

Isn't it one of those games you said you got pictures taken with Ronald Reagan?

:les:

The article is significant because it shows how well the Hawks managed their cap situation. You don't want to constantly carrying over left over money. That implies you're either sloppy with managing it or you aren't spending to win as a team. While it's nice to have a "windfall" for an upcoming season, it not a sustainable policy.

lobohawk":3cjrsllm said:

The article is significant because it shows how well the Hawks managed their cap situation. You don't want to constantly carrying over left over money. That implies you're either sloppy with managing it or you aren't spending to win as a team. While it's nice to have a "windfall" for an upcoming season, it not a sustainable policy.

Click to expand...

That is IMHO a very oversimplified look on things. When you manage to get a RW in the third round and then Sherman in the fifth and other players as well then you better be able to roll over money. Don't go spend the $15million you may have just for the sake of spending it. You will need it to extend the players you have on the cheap now and you can use today's money to do it in the future.

That is why the Harvin signing was such a bad thing. Not just the draft picks but spending money that could have been rolled over and used on others. That is why Cary Williams was such a bad signing. That money could have been rolled over to this year -- don't tell me it was good to spend it last year?

I get that bad decisions will always be made in this business my point is simply that carrying large amounts over doesn't mean you are "sloppy" / not managing it.

Largent80":1hunjeoq said:

I don't care because it is so expensive I am very lucky if I can go to a game. They can make whatever, but the entire process has gotten old for me. I used to go to L.A. to watch the Rams in the cheap seats for $5.00, now game tickets can easily get over $1,000 each. Greed prevails.

Not trying to derail the thread, however my point is part of the process of cap money.

Click to expand...

Only 34% of ticket sales are part of the cap money...the other 66% of that money goes directly into the home team owner's pockets. The salary cap is made up of the money that the networks pay to broadcast the NFL and a few national corporate sponsors. Greed does prevail.

Those teams that have a ton of cap space wish they had the players we do to spend money on.